The decision to spend $100 million on a Patullo Bridge upgrade is another example why Translink does not deserve any respect. That was not an accident. It was planned all the while because Translink hasn’t got a viable Patullo Bridge replacement plan in place yet. surrey and New Westminster cannot agree what and where to build the bridge.

The timing of this announcement coincided pretty well with the deadline of getting the plebiscite ballots into Elections BC.

All the while, we were told that the 10 year plan included a new Patullo Bridge. Wouldn’t it have made better sense, if Translink waited for the voting results before making this announcement?

If the vote result is YES in favour of the 10-year transportation plan, all they have to do is get on with the new Patullo Bridge construction and not throw $100 million away on a bridge destined to be torn down.

But by throwing $100 million at the old bridge, Translink will be able to continue to procrastinate on the replacement.

Hopefully, the vote will be a resounding NO so that Premier Clark is forced to implement Plan B.

Response: No dispute that it takes time to get Surrey and New Westminster on board, design and build a new bridge. If Translink is as forward thinking as expected, it would have started the essential seismic upgrade much sooner. And why was such an critical upgrade delayed until now? At the most, we will get only 5 years of service out of the $100 million.wouldn’t it make more sense to take the risk ( you know like bitumen pipeline and tanker spill risks)and put the money into a new bridge?

But CC’s promise of a referendum/plebiscite put a monkey wrench into the works. If Translink had already embarked on a disruptive upgrade project before or early in the voting, that would have positively killed the yes vote. So Translink waited until the 11th hour to spring this on the voters knowing that it is now too late to cast a No vote. At least, there is now a chance that the yes vote will pass.

Additionally, the cynic in me suggests this is all part of the scheme to at least temporary force more toll-paying traffic onto the new Port Mann to stop the bleeding of red ink. The Translink decision was a “made in heaven” life line for the Port Mann.

This sounds very similar with how the Port Mann bridge was treated. Over the years successive governments poured millions of dollars trying to expand its capacity only to have it dismantled in favour of a new bridge. Anyone with half a brain would know that by simply removing any commercial vehicles exceeding a gvw of 10.000 kg. and regular maintenance would be sufficient enough to extend the life of the current bridge until a replacement is built.

It seems that when some entity is spending someone else’s money, cost is no object.

Notice what litlle some posters have to say is completely devoid of thinking. If they can’t make an intelligent comment, why bother? Typical of a very few marshmallows who have litlle or thin skins. Fortunately, the majority are thoughtful.